Thoughts on Emily Blake's "How I lost my faith in Scriptshadow."

Emily Blake dropped a helluva post on her blog yesterday, entitled "The Scriptshadow: How I lost my faith in Carson Reeves."  It's an incredibly well-written editorial that pretty much hits on a lot of the recent incidents that should give even former supporters of Carson Reeves pause.  Her post is coming from the perspective of someone who used to support and - I believe - even defend Carson Reeves's practices and that makes her revulsion at what the site has become that much more potent.

For her, the sea change came after Carson's efforts to promote The Disciple Program landed its writer representation. 

Suddenly, his cost for notes went up and up until he was charging $1,000 a pop. The ONLY reason you'd pay that much for notes is that you think he will pass your script onto his contacts. (As a contrast, the well-respected Screenplay Mechanic's MAX price is $325.) 

Then it started to feel like Carson was the one who made The Disciple Program happen. He posted entries less about Tyler's success and more about his own genius in finding a great script, as if this was somehow a really amazing skill, more amazing than actually writing the script. I'm pretty sure Marceca would have been found eventually, by someone. 

Carson's tweets became more and more self-serving, until they started to make me uncomfortable.

If you've been reading this blog for a while, you'll know that I've had my issues with how Carson operates. Following John August's posts about Scriptshadow, I realized that there were unintended consequences to what Carson does.  In fact, I wrote not one, but two posts about it.

That's one argument against him - that he harms working writers.  And yes, if you dig through the history, you CAN find working writers attesting to how the site made difficult for them.  Had John August not removed all the comments from his site, you could read an account from one writer of how an SS review torpedoed a pending deal. (Anyone know how to retrieve that somehow?)

[Update: someone did know how.  Check out comment 100 here by Michael Gilvary and comment 44 by "Working Writer" might also be of interest too.]

There's also this testimony from Marianne Wibberly. Screenwriter Gary Whitta talks about feeling violated by an unauthorized review. And someone posting on Done Deal Pro claiming to be an agent talks about a deal directly going south because of Scriptshadow reviews.

Other pros have weighed in on these two threads on Done Deal Pro.  PLENTY of pros have spoken out about how Scriptshadow makes their livelihoods difficult and how the dissemination and review of their intellectual property hurts them.  So know this - I do not recognize the validity of any counterarguement that says "I don't believe these reviews and script leaks hurt anyone."  Multiple people actually working in the industry at various levels have told you it does.  Accept it. 

But you know what? I'm gonna make it easy.  You can completely ignore that arguement.  There are plenty of other completely independent reasons why people in the business are not fans of Scriptshadow.

If you've read my blog for a while, you'll know I'm not a fan of people who charge insanely high fees for "coverage" while using the promise of access as bait.  Well, Carson charges $1000 for a few pages of coverage, promising to push the script out to his contacts if he likes it.  No one's notes are worth that much.  And it may be your money to spend, but this is a clear demonstration of Carson's credibility lapse.  Talk to any produced writer and they'll tell you you're a fool to pay that much for feedback (Justin Marks, Geoff LaTulippe and F. Scott Frazier are among those who have said so on Twitter) and only an unscrupulous opportunist would conduct themselves in such a manner.

But forget that too.  Remember all my posts about slimy "Producers in Name Only" who just want to attach themselves to your work and ride your coattails?  Scriptshadow wrote a post where he proudly declared he wanted to do just that.

Seriously, read that whole post.  I want you to look at that through the eyes of an industry professional.  Not only does Carson imply that being a producer is easy, but he flat out admits that he doesn't know what a producer does, then reveals his grand plan is to hook up with a bigger producer and take advantage of their hard work.

More than anything else, that post utterly destroys any credibility that Carson Reeves could hope to have in the industry.  It reveals him as a poser who knows nothing about what he's trying to do, all while arrogantly declaring it'll be easy for him.  He might as well have written a blog about how he planned on playing in the Super Bowl, so long as Tim Tebow took him under his wing.

Let's not forget that his notes service continued to be active even after this declaration.  This now made Carson Reeves a producer who was charging for notes.  That's one of the first things aspiring writers are told - "No reputable producer charges for access or notes."  It's incredibly unethical, as it would be if Jerry Bruckheimer ran a service where he'd read your script and give you notes for $1000.

No one who considers themselves a professional would ever do business with a "producer" who represents himself in that manner.  And then he doubled down on that last week by posting about how he'd gotten an early look at a script that was circulating town and thought it was brilliant.  This is exactly what he said:


Really hoping something good comes of it. And if not, well, that's not so bad either. Maybe then I'll be able to convince Todd to let me jump on board. This is the kind of franchise potential project producers dream of. I want to be involved! :) :) :) 

So he basically roots for this script to fail when it goes out wide so that he can attach himself as producer.  But why?  Just because he happened to look at it first?  What does he bring to the table?
You'd never see a post like that from Jon Landau or Jerry Bruckheimer.  But that's a bad analogy anyway - their attachment actually adds value to the package. Aspiring screenwriters - this is not a guy who can help your script by being attached to it.

I reiterate - no one in this town with any real power or professionalism would risk their reputation by pairing up with a guy who acts like that.

Which brings me to "The Industry Contest, presented by The Tracking Board and Scriptshadow."

Tracking Board has just announced their partnership with Carson Reeves for yet another opportunity for writers to separate themselves from their hard-earned cash for a shot at "breaking in."  Full details have yet to be announced, but considering the many concerns about Scriptshadow's professional credibility, I'd be wary of any competition that uses a partnership with him as a selling point.

Most of you who are active in the screenwriting blogosphere are probably aware that the Scriptshadow debate has been a fairly persistant one in recent months - on Twitter, on message boards and on blogs.  It's unlikely that someone could be active in the screenwriting community on the internet and not be aware of this.  Ergo, unless they are completely oblivious, Tracking Board should have had an inkling of this.

And if they aren't oblivious, then they partnered with him in full awareness of the many ethical concerns and debate about Carson, his notes service, and his producing aspirations.  It's worrying to me that none of that gave these so-called "professionals" pause, for it means that those legitimate concerns either meant nothing to them, or they were banking on people not raising those concerns.

Or to put it the way The Daily Show would - it seems that Tracking Board is either evil (for pairing up with someone who has huge ethical issues attached to them) or stupid (for not being aware of said issues.)

Other people have pointed out another concern with Carson's attachement.  What assurances does any writer submitting to this contest have that their script won't end up on one of Carson's "super-secret mailing lists?"  He sends out a weekly email with links to scripts he intends to review, as well as other desired scripts around town.

Let's say the next Tyler Marceca happens to submit to this Tracking Board competition.  Heck, maybe the script doesn't win, but somehow it manages to get some heat around town thanks to the writer passing it to the right person.  So it's the hottest spec in town, sells for six figures... and Carson Reeves has a PDF of it sitting in his hard drive.

How fast do you think he'd push that script out to his newsletter?  Does anyone think he wouldn't review it for his site?  It would be entirely consistent with his past behavior to do so.

There's too much potential impropriety here.  Which is why I'm urging that so long as Scriptshadow is attached to this contest, you're better off avoiding it.

Scriptshadow no longer has the luxury of sticking his head in the sand and waiting for this storm to pass.  His own words have left him more vulnerable than any attack from a John August or other blogger.  This is not an operation that any reputable industry pro would want to do business with, and it is not to your benefit to associate yourself with such an individual.

The most amazing saga of slimy producers I have heard

Remember back when I talked about parasite PINOs - Producers In Name Only - and how their attachment to your script can often cause more headaches than benefits?  Well, I recently came across an amazing series of blog posts from writer Doug Richardson. 

As Doug introduces the story:

I’ve written about theft before. Both stories and ideas nicked by scumbag producers without consequence. What follows is an epic tale. All true. With multiple endings that, to this day, still leave me and others gob-smacked.

Set aside some time and read this.  It's an amusing, at times barely believable story.  But it's also a cautionary tale. Some of you may have already read it.  For those that haven't, I do not DARE even think of ruining all the twists and turns in this epic.

The Smoking Gun - part 1
The Smoking Gun - part 2
The Smoking Gun - part 3
The Smoking Gun - part 4

What is a "Producer In Name Only" and how do they get paid for getting nothing?

On Monday I dropped a term that some of you may have been unfamiliar with: Producer In Name Only.

As it turns out, one of my readers WAS familiar with that term and offered up an assessment even blunter than my usual candor:

I am quite familiar with the reputation of the PINO from first hand experiences, but never realized there was a name for it! 

Better know as the parasites who burrow their way into the credits of a project and then use those credits to go get more work (under false pretenses) and they continue to fail upward while sabotaging one project at a time. 

The PINO becomes a self fueling cycle of inept undeserved saboteurs running around with over inflated credits.

A lot of PINOs are managers who attach themselves to scripts as producers or executive producers. Do you know what that means? Not a heck of a lot. In most of those cases, the person in question pockets a check and gets included on a lot of email chains, but they have no creative role on the project at all. Often, they might not even have a voice on the business side of things either.

You're not dealing with Brian Grazer or J.J. Abrams here. I'll give you an example of such a PINO. Buffy fans, have you ever watched the credits on the TV show and seen the "Executive Producer" credits for Fran Rubel Kuzui and Kaz Kuzui? Do you know what they contributed to the TV show? Nothing.

 "At least two of the executive producers have never seen the set of Angel. A business deal signed at the outset of the Buffy film gave them a financial stake in all things Buffy. They've received credit and sizable checks for the duration of Buffy and Angel for doing absolutely nothing. (Names furnished upon request)" - Dan Kearns, crew member on Angel, wrote in the essay, "Angel by the Numbers" from Five Seasons of Angel (2004), p25.

A good guide to identifying PINOs is to listen to a writer's commentary and see if there's any "Producer" or "Executive Producer" credit that they snicker at.  These crop up often on the Seinfeld DVDs, when Jerry Seinfeld's manager's "Executive Producer" credit pops up.  The name "Bernie Brillstein" often provokes this response.

This is a good example of how the title "Producer" is probably the most abused in Hollywood.  Not all producers are created equal.

That's why you want to take extra care when attaching a "producer" to your script.  Remember the tale of Anthony E. Zuiker, who sold his script to a producer who soon became a hinderance to getting a major studio to sell it. 

Sometimes the PINO might just be out for credit and some money.  If that's all they're after, you might be lucky.  And in fairness, not all PINOs are bad.  I had one script where I told a friend of mine to attach themselves as "Executive Producer" if they made use of their favors to get the script in front of someone who might be interested in it.  In that case, I believed in the script but I knew that this person could get it in front of people who were inaccessible to me. 

With that arrangement, we both would have benefitted from the script getting made.  As friends, we were only too happy to help each other.  The worst-case scenario for something like this is where you get stuck with a parasite.  This is where your writing is doing all the heavy lifting of getting people interested and the PINO is little more than a parasite looking to gloom onto your success.


Beware this arrangement, particularly if after you do the hard work of getting "real" producers attached, they have delusions of being actively involved as a producer.  A bad PINO can screw you over by being a pain-in-the-ass that the real creatives get sick of accommodating.  Zuiker's story the other day might be a less common one, but stuff like that definitely happens.

You can't always predict how someone attached to your script might try to exploit you.  So take care when allowing someone to tie themselves to your success. 

Anthony E. Zuiker's "The Runner" - a business lesson in bad deals and attachments

I'm not able to delve into the business end of screenwriting as much as I'd like, largely because I either lack the personal experience OR could only offer examples that are so specific as to instantly earn the wrath of a former employer or two.  Sure, I could offer examples in the abstract, but I find that stories like this are more effective when specific examples are used.

I've been reading C.S.I creator/producer Anthony E. Zuiker's memoir Mr. C.S.I., and in it he discusses the complications he ran into while selling his first screenplay The Runner.  He wrote it back in the late 90s and having few other connections, managed to get hooked up with Mike Marvin.  Marvin's greatest claim to fame was as producer of a low budget teen comedy called Hot Dog... The Movie.  Marvin liked the script so much, he said wanted to direct it and he offered the struggling writer $35,000 for the screenplay.

In his book, Zuiker looks back on that offer with wiser persepective.

"That was huge money... But what sounded like a fortune would turn out to be a terrible business decision.  What did I know?  What did any of us know?  We were as inexperienced as we had been told.  Yet when I said we had a deal, not only did Ron [Moler, Marvin's financial partner] shake my hand, he had me sit at his computer and write out a simple straightforward deal memo.


"'Just say we have a deal,' he said.  'Write that you are selling me The Runner for thirty-five thousand dollars.'"

How did this come back to bite Zuiker?  I'm glad you asked.  Time passed, and The Runner was a strong enough sample to get representation at CAA.  That's when things got complicated.

Sony Pictures is so over the moon for the script that they offer Zuiker a two-picture deal - six figures for The Runner and six figures for a subsequent script to be written later.  That's basically the dream, right?

Take it from here, Tony...


"But then Ron refused to relinquish his right to direct.  He reminded everyone he had a signed contract.  He owned the project.  I saw my million-dollar fantasy disappear."


A couple lessons here:

First, don't sign anything without consulting a professional who's looking out for your interests.

Second, beware of attachments that hinder your film rather than help it.  With a director committed to the picture, the big studios had no interest in funding the film because they had no enthusiasm for working with Ron Moler.  Look at his credits - he had no directing experience before The Runner and his producing credits aren't terribly distinguished either.  An attachment like that is less a selling point and more of an anchor, dragging down your film.

Less notable talent can be a stumbling block for a sale.  If you're trying to sell a Bruckheimer-level project and somehow you got a Troma-level producer attached, that guy becomes a pain-in-the-ass whom the buyer might have to accommodate.   Even if a director on Hannah Montana might be your neighbor and your only industry contact, it might not be wise to let him attach himself as director to your erotic thriller - even if he says he can get it to the big boys at CAA.

What might have worked - and possibly may have been tried in this case - would have been to buy out Ron Moler's stake in the film.  Basically, they could have paid him NOT to direct.  That scenario would require two things:

(1) Ron's willingness to part with the film - if he was really determined to make his directorial debut with this script, it would probably cost quite a bit to meet his price.

(2)The Studio would have to be enamored enough with the script that it would be worth it for them to pay extra.

But since that series of events didn't come to pass, Zuiker's dreams of Hollywood glory ended up being deferred temporarily.  He got lucky - a second shot eventually came around.  A lot of naive writers might not have gotten that second chance.  Don't let your desire to have your script produced let you make bad snap decisions about who to get into bed with on a project.

Ideally, the Studio could have bought Ron off with an extra sum, perhaps with a producer credit.  Notice I said "credit."  When this sort of deal goes through, guys like Ron often become what we call a "PINO."  That's "Producer In Name Only."

What's a PINO?  Why don't we explore that on Wednesday.

If they were lucky